USA Today Still Rewriting the Iraq War

"Seven Years of War Provides Many Answers" is USA Today's front-page headline (8/27/10) over a story by Jim Michaels and Mimi Hall that attempts to take stock of the Iraq War. But one issue that the paper can't seem to get right seven years later is how the war started.

USA Today provides this stunningly deceptive summary:

In October 2002, the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to authorize force against Iraq. In November, the United Nations Security Council adopted a unanimous resolution offering Saddam "a final opportunity" to comply with disarmament. Three months later, Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S. and European intelligence agencies believed Iraq was hiding its weaponry and seeking more.

The final U.N. inspection report stated that Iraq failed to account for chemical and biological stockpiles. U.N. inspector Hans Blix said he had "no confidence" that the weaponry had been destroyed.

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush said: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

At 5:34 a.m., March 20, 2003, a U.S. force backed by 34 nations crossed into Iraq. The war was on.

A more accurate chronology of the weapons inspection–like this one from the Arms Control Association–revealsthat while inspectors expressed frustration with someIraqi behavior, theywere encouraged by the progress they were making. They determined rather early in the process, for instance, that there was no Iraqi nuclear program to speak of. Thatwas one of the Bush administration's most damning claims against Iraq; its falsehood should figure into any account of the pre-war period.

That chronology also recalls that there wasan effortto get the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution that would formally endorse the war, even though the weapons inspections process was not finished. The U.S. failed to prevail in that effort, and the inspectors were removed. Again, it's hard to imagine a summary of the run-up to the war that discounts the fact that the United States launched the war without the U.N. approval it sought.

It's not entirely clearwhere the Hans Blix quote ("no confidence") comes from. He does use that phrase in regards to a "preliminary assessment of Iraq's weapons declaration" (12/19/02)–pretty much the opposite of a "final U.N. inspection report"–explaining why such declarations have to be verified and can't be taken at face value.

Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly on prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.

This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has, so far, been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.

Blix also said:

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.

Recalling this history merely as Blix saying that he had "no confidence" that Iraq had destroyed any weapons isterribly misleading. But it ishelpful to those who still wish to argue that the Iraq War was a good faith effort to destroy the weapons of a madman.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

michael e "You trust Nabil shaath and and Mahmoud Abbas and what they sayÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦.. yet not what Saddam says?"

Jim Naureckas "I would just note that the story michael e links to is discussed at length in Seth's piece–which points out that it does not, in fact, quote Saddam Hussein on the supposed bluff."

Jacques Cousteau "Like an amoeba, Michael e responds to a variety of stimuli with a single response."

ps: jim lobe did not say that isreal was pulling bush's strings…simply that a lot of american neocons in the administration believed that invading iraq would ultimately benefit israel. you really can't seem to read for comprehension

Ps Dj………Should be "who would have you believe otherwise"Sorry that was a bit confusing.Could sound a might Hard daysnightish is you said it fast.
Point is I think the speaker…the majority leader….may actually be a little bit addled.Bats in the bell tower stuff.Crazy as a shit house rat!VP Joe B is firing a bit off off the ol bulls eye himself.Obama is not crazy.He just grew up in a world that taught him so many wrong concepts that he sometimes seems like he must be.My point is as clear thinking as you and your lib friends may believe yourself to be……….These are your leaders.They brought in thier looney administration to rule and not to govern. YesI blame you for your vote.And I hold you suspect in any dealings with you.Especially as far as debating world geo politics.After all……….You are the followers of some really crazy theories as espoused by this Dem leadership.You are painted somewhat by the friends you keep.

W and B
I may be thick but….Are you saying the Saddam link I sent you is doctored or phony?Or both?Or are you saying he was lying to his debriefers so you discount it?Because his words as reflected on in that link have been recorded for history word for word.THe CIA agent is only giving his recollection, yet nothing as far as I know differs from the transcripts.I am confused on what basis you discount his own explanation on the reason why he did not come clean to Bush even as the end drew near(the fear of Iran theory).This is not Rove or Rummy speaking.Or Bush.It was Saddam.Yet you discount it with a weird notion that he was not quoted?????And you have indicated it more than once.ARe not his words as taped and transcribed in effect a quote?

michael, i'm reacting to the cbs news story at the link your sent and as seth pointed out, the cia interrogator makes the claim that saddam wanted to keep up the illusion of possessing wmd's to keep iran off balance, but he never says that saddam said that, no date, no direct quote…here's the relevant passage

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

piro never puts saddam's supposed statements into a time frame…perhaps saddam was talking about what was happening in the 90s, because, as seth points out again, iraq released a 1200 page report in late 2002 saying categorically that they had no weapons.. [odd way to convince iran of a continued iraqi threat.]

then, saddam went on 60 minutes on feb 26th 03 and told dan rather in an interview "Iraq was absolutely certain that what it had said–what the Iraqi officials had kept saying–that Iraq was empty, was void, of any such weapons, was the case." He did so "in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such weapons." [another odd way to convince iran of a continued iraqi threat.]

in other words, this question from cbs's pelley: "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" isn't based on the actual historical record of late 02- early 03.

now i suppose all of what happened in the six months before the invasion COULD be described as saddam "not coming clean," but that would involving accepting that words don't actually have any fixed meaning.

then there's the fact that Saddam "wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction"? A lot of things may have taken place since 2003, but it shouldn't be too hard for a CBS viewer to remember that this simply isn't the way things happened. When inspectors were sent back to Baghdad in 2002, Iraq released a massive report insisting there were no such weapons. Indeed, CBS, like every other news outlet, reported this at the time.

Bob Schieffer, the network's Washington bureau chief, announced the news this way (12/8/02): "Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, but should we believe him?" Interviewing a visiting senator on Face the Nation, Schieffer asked what would happen if U.S. experts "conclude that Saddam Hussein is once again lying, as he has so often in the pastÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦claiming he doesn't have the weapons, when in fact we know that he has. What do we do next?"

Schieffer's question was quickly answered by the White House. "The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction," Bush declared (3/6/03) shortly before the invasion, in a typical pronouncement from that period. "He declared he didn't have any. [The U.N.] insisted that he have a complete declaration of his weapons; he said he didn't have any weapons."

A personal appearance

60 Minutes' claim that Saddam "wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction" is all the more preposterous since Saddam Hussein actually appeared personally on 60 Minutes II to tell the country in no uncertain terms that had no weapons of mass destruction.

In the interview with Dan Rather that rather famously aired on that program (2/26/03) three weeks before the invasion, Saddam explained that Iraq had agreed to allow inspectors back into the country "even though Iraq was absolutely certain that what it had said–what the Iraqi officials had kept saying–that Iraq was empty, was void, of any such weapons, was the case." He did so "in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such weapons."

michael, i'm reacting to the cbs news story at the link your sent and as seth pointed out, the cia interrogator makes the claim that saddam wanted to keep up the illusion of possessing wmd's to keep iran off balance, but he never says that saddam said that, no date, no direct quoteÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦here's the relevant passage

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

piro never puts saddam's supposed statements into a time frameÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦perhaps saddam was talking about what was happening in the 90s, because, as seth points out again, iraq released a 1200 page report in late 2002 saying categorically that they had no weapons.. [odd way to convince iran of a continued iraqi threat.]

then, saddam went on 60 minutes on feb 26th 03 and told dan rather in an interview "Iraq was absolutely certain that what it had said–what the Iraqi officials had kept saying–that Iraq was empty, was void, of any such weapons, was the case." He did so "in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such weapons." [another odd way to convince iran of a continued iraqi threat.]

in other words, this question from cbs's pelley: "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" isn't based on the actual historical record of late 02- early 03.

now i suppose all of what happened in the six months before the invasion COULD be described as saddam "not coming clean," but that would involving accepting that words don't actually have any fixed meaning.

W and b.Yes i understand your point.I just think you are getting lost in minutia and being a stickler to avoid a simple truth that you want not to agree with..The words you quoted have been more than confirmed and the transcripts do exist that are the complete debrief of Saddam.There is no divergence I have ever seen or heard of.Even Peter does not claim that.And words do have a fixed meaning.Saddam said a good many things.Our president and the world body at that time chose to make a decision on what they were willing to accept.(Note they were willing to accept nothing but unconditional compliance.)I feel they made those calls in good faith.You do not.I feel Saddam brought much of this on himself.You seem to feel(Ok my words)that he was a somewhat innocent bystander doing everything he was asked -but evil old George Bush was intransient to his parlays.I don't think any record, historical or otherwise will ever see it that way.His(Saddams) defiance was absolute.It was seen even as he stood on the gallows.Bush could not in any sane way TRUST him.Trust but verify maybe.But it was not to be.And monday morning quarterbacking Bush in the hopes if only he had waited a bit longer Iraqi leadership would of come around is a spurious argument.Saddam told all those concerned about his WNDs……We aint got any, so hit the road Joe.Although Bush and the leaders at that time(Dems as well)did have faulty intel they chose not to live with his words/lies/bluffs/games any longer.Simple no?
Dj
Maybe I made a mistake there come to think of it.I actually don't recall you ever stating any case on any level at any time.Or taking any particular stance.Just a lot of snarky comments.That said….that is a good description of the libs in power and folks who follow like lemmings behind them.So maybe I did take something for granted. Maybe you did not vote for mr tax -n- spend BAM a licious, community unorganizer, bucking to get on the PGA tour, grand poobah of ours.If you didn't good for you and I apologize.If ya did …….hows that workin out for ya?

On Nov. 21, 2001, 72 days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush directed Rumsfeld to begin planning for war with Iraq. "Let's get started on this," Bush recalled saying. "And get Tommy Franks looking at what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to." He also asked: Could this be done on a basis that would not be terribly noticeable?

Bush received his first detailed briefing on Iraq war plans five weeks later, on Dec. 28, when Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, visited Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex. Bush told reporters afterward that they had discussed Afghanistan.

Michael Smith The Sunday Times [London] May 1, 2005

Tony Blair made his fundamental decision on Saddam when he met President George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.

In a Downing Street meeting on July 27, 2002 Sir Richard Dearlove noted his intelligence concerned his recent visit to Washington where he had held talks with George Tenet, director of the CIA.

ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“Military action was now seen as inevitable,ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ said Dearlove. ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ

Last night, Obama referred to the invasion as a ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“war to disarm a state,ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ which was the official justification given by his predecessor. If we grant that this was the purpose of the war and not the pretext for regime change, it really makes no difference whether a far-off post-Saddam Iraq would have been better or worse than the one that has emerged now, because it means that the U.S. had no business invading on the Bush administration\'s own terms.

As Ross Douthat wrote in early 2009: "Strip away Saddam\'s (supposed) rearmament and the imminent threat it (supposedly) posed, and the fact that you had nine other ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€¦“here\'s why this might be a good ideaÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ reasons for war did not a strong-enough justification for war make."

If the primary purpose of the war was always regime change regardless of whether or not Hussein was already disarmed, an antiwar argument focused on preserving Iraqi and regional stability becomes even stronger.

It seems perverse to speculate on how much worse things might have been in Iraq had the United States not launched an unnecessary and illegal invasion that toppled Hussein\'s regime. Much like the demagoguing of Iraq\'s potential threat to the U.S. before the war, supporters of the invasion make up for their complete lack of evidence by asking us to imagine the very worst things that might occur if we had done nothing.

I have no doubt Bush thought- planned and had plans drawn as you speculate.And damn well he should have.I am just as sure Obama is doing the same in regards to Iran and N Korea and other hot spots.On any given day we have war plans to every place on the face of the earth.The president is briefed and involved.And damned well he better be.To take it a step further and say it proves Bush planned war regardless of what anyone thought beyond treaties and convention is conspiracy nonsense.I remember Clinton saying war with Iraq was unavoidable once they had trashed their surrender agreements.This was before 911.Obama's people seemed to indicate war crimes against Bush early on,yet once in the loop ….it all faded away.It is called top secret briefings.It has been said when first briefed Obama was ashen faced on the realities of the world.You are talking out of your hat.Using theories by jornalists who don't have a hat to p in.Churchill once said death is people writing of your life who have never met you or know anything of you writing with the little they know of you.Im getting that feeling about Bush here.

My guess is that 'michael e' is a raging meth-addict (with all the attendant legal & social problems that entails) who admires James Joyce 'stream-of-consciousness' writing and tries to emulate it in his political writing, a'la Hunter Thompson, but without the coherency. At least HT knew how to spell, punctuate, and make the 'gonzo' style occasionally interesting, something which escapes michael e. He answers the question 'how twisted DO you have to be in order to believe Bush was justified in starting the latest Iraq War?', so he provides a service thereby…

William Hamilton was quoting from plan of attack, a book the white house approved of and Michael Smith was quoting offical british government memos…that activity is know as citing fact, not advancing rumor…

can you offer a source for Clinton saying war with Iraq was unavoidable ? google can't

Big em and Caribou great to have your viewpoints on this burning issue.Ok not really- but father and mother always told me how to act in polite society.Have you anything other than empty insults?
W and B You can find the Clinton quote in his book(surprise I no longer have it).I used to use it as a talking point.He was asked about it in interviews at that time.His feeling was that as Irag broke one promise after another of their surrender pledges, and as they forced out weapons inspectors that they were on the road to war.That it may be inevitable.At that time I thought he overstated….I worked on his campaign.He was many things.Dumb was not one of them.He had more grey matter than Bush and Obama together and better political instincts.I should of listened a bit closer.He proved to be right on that one.
White house approved?British memos?What white house?What memos?We are listening to paper trails far south of leadership and ignoring the actual leadership?Bush and Blair have not admitted to launching this war for the weak reasons you have positioned as the real reasons for this war.Quite the contrary

Ps
Big em. I never said anyone let alone Bush was "justified"in starting a war.I don't know if anyone ever is justified.That is beyond my pay grade and beliefs.He did set in motion our military actions.That is historically a fact.To say he did so for spurious reasons and go about drawing all kinds of wacky conclusions outside the historical narrative is going to take serious data and proof.FAIR seems very left sided in all their views.Their starting and ending place always seem flight logged out ahead of time .Always suspect.I think this is a pretty easy to read.And FAIR is just muddying the waters with speculation.
Caribou …Artium baccalaureus,philosophiae doctor,medicinae doctor .What R U a lover of pain and latin?
AS for Glen he had the best butter cookie rec.ever.That I did copy.After I ate them I became a zombie and followed him slavishly.Go ahead and spread that rumor.Hope it cements your beliefs.

hello there and thank you for your information ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬“ I have certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical points using this web site, as I experienced to reload the website lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I'm complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your high-quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I\'m adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you update this again very soon..